---

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is set to announce a federal jobs proposal that would guarantee a job with at least a $15-per-hour wage and health benefits to every adult American “who wants or needs one,” The Washington Post reports.

The senator is still in the early stages of crafting the plan, according to the Post, which would provide a job or required training for any American.

Sanders's office has yet to release the details of the plan's funding, but previous large-scale projects proposed by the Vermont progressive have involved ending tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations

---

---

BERNIE’S SOCIAL PROGRAMS WOULD COST $18 TRILLION... AND THAT DOESN’T INCLUDE HIS NEW “JOBS FOR EVERYONE” PLAN
by Kevin Ryan

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has come up with another massive blow-out-the-budget proposal. This time, he‘s working on a plan for the government to hire anyone who wants or needs a job for $15/hr plus healthcare benefits, and free job training.

Aides are still working on the details, and so far have no idea how much it would cost, or how it would be paid for. But it’s not hard to imagine that the cost would be enormous. The program would likely draw not just unemployed people, but also anyone currently making less than $15/hr. That’s a whole lot of people to move onto the government payroll.

Bernie has already proposed other massive social programs, including “free” healthcare, “free” college tuition, and “free” medical leave, which combined would cost an estimated $18 trillion over ten years. That represents a 53% increase in the size of the federal government. Other economists put the cost much higher than that... as high as $30 trillion! And that doesn’t include this newest proposal.

Who would pay for all this? You would. Via higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, and lower wages, leaving even less disposable income to pay for the burgeoning cost of living.

---

---

For those who believe a guaranteed basic income is the answer to the world’s economic woes: welcome to Finland.

Starting in January 2017, Finland experimented with giving a random sample of 2,000 unemployed people between the ages of 25 and 58 a monthly income of roughly $690; the recipients were not required to have a job; if they did take a job, they would receive the same amount.

The idea was to stimulate people to look for paid work by eradicating gaps in the welfare system; the Finnish government thought that with existing unemployment benefits so high, an unemployed person would eschew getting a job because they would risk losing money by doing so; the more money they made, the lower their social benefits would be. The basic income was meant as an incentive for people to start working.


But now Finland is canceling the program, though the government will not say why. Kela, the Finnish social security agency, asked the government to expand the two-year pilot to a group of employees this year, but the government nixed funding it, meaning the entire program will come to a crashing halt in January 2019.

The pilot's results will not be released until late 2019, according to the BBC.

In 2016, Swiss voters rejected a proposal that would have given a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,834; $2,558) for adults and also 625 Swiss francs for each child. 77% of voters voted against the plan.

---

---

On Tuesday, Josef Schuster, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, told German Jews to avoid wearing yarmulkes on the streets after an Arab Israeli was assaulted for wearing a kippa just days ago in a social experiment. The suspect beat the Arab Israeli with his belt while shouting “Yahudi” – “Jew” in Arabic. The suspect in the assault is a 19-year-old Syrian refugee “of Palestinian origin.” Schuster explained that people should stop “showing themselves openly with a kippah in a big-city setting in Germany, and wear a baseball cap or something else to cover their head instead.” According to the Associated Press:Fully 51% of all anti-Semitic attacks in Sweden were perpetrated by Muslims, as opposed to 5% perpetrated by right-wing extremists and 25% perpetrated by Left-wing extremists.

The European press are determined to ignore this problem, even as it grows radically — even as elderly Holocaust survivors are thrown from windows or stabbed to death, even as Jewish supermarkets are targeted, even as non-Jews are attacked for wearing yarmulkes. Political correctness trumps public safety and honest discussions about value differences. No wonder Europe is in trouble.

---

---

Conservative comedian Terrance Williams’ Facebook account was suspended after he posted screenshots of people sending him death threats, yet the accounts who sent the threats are still up.
...
Touching on Facebook’s hypocrisy by suspending him and not the people calling him Uncle Tom and the N-word, Williams pointed out, “You’re going to ban me because I’m exposing them? You’re telling me that I’m harassing them and that I’m bullying them? Y’all have lost your everlasting mind.”

Watters suggested Williams could be getting targeted because he’s a black conservative, citing the recent censorship of Diamond and Silk as an example.

Williams agreed that race could be a factor, saying, “The Democrats are mad that black people are waking up so they see me and they’re like ‘oh my god this black is woke, he don’t want our food stamps, he don’t want our welfare and he’s doing nothing but speaking facts. Oh no we have to silence him we have to shut him down.'”

---

---

---

---

---

---

On Tuesday evening, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that President Trump could not legally end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, arguing that Trump would have to begin reissuing temporary visas again. He called the decision to end DACA “arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

So, in other words, if a president takes an executive action, then the subsequent president cannot undo that executive action — even if that original executive action has been declared unconstitutional, at least in part.

This is insanity — or, as Michael Brendan Dougherty of National Review put it, it’s “Calvinball,” the inane game created by cartoon character Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes, who arbitrarily changed the rules of the game when convenient. Here’s how leftist courts have now ruled: an action that is obviously unconstitutional is no longer unconstitutional when performed by President Obama; undoing that unconstitutional action is unconstitutional if performed by President Trump. Hence the bewilderment of the Department of Justice, whose spokesperson answered, “Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend benefits to this same group of illegal aliens.”

Whether you oppose or support DACA is irrelevant here. What is far more relevant is whether the courts are performing their actual function — legitimate interpretation of the law — or whether they’re simply rubber-stamping policy with which they agree.

---

---

CONCLUSION

Executive Branch officials possess relatively unconstrained authority to enforce the law
against certain violators but not others. Ordinarily, the exercise of that authority is subject to
review not in a court of law, but rather in the court of public opinion: members of the public know
how their elected officials have used their enforcement powers, and they can hold those officials
accountable by speaking out, by petitioning their representatives, or ultimately at the ballot box.
When an official claims that the law requires her to exercise her enforcement authority in a certain
way, however, she excuses herself from this accountability. Moreover, if her view of the law is
incorrect, she may needlessly forego the opportunity to implement appropriate enforcement
priorities and also to demonstrate those priorities to the public.

Fortunately, neither Supreme Court nor D.C. Circuit precedent compels such a result.
Rather, the cases are clear that courts have the authority to review an agency’s interpretation of the
law if it is relied on to justify an enforcement policy, even when that interpretation concerns the
lawful scope of the agency’s enforcement discretion. See Chaney, 470 U.S. at 832–33; OSG, 132
F.3d at 812; Crowley, 37 F.3d at 676–77. Under this rule, an official cannot claim that the law ties
her hands while at the same time denying the courts’ power to unbind her. She may escape political
accountability or judicial review, but not both.

Here, the Department’s decision to rescind DACA was predicated primarily on its legal
judgment that the program was unlawful. That legal judgment was virtually unexplained,
however, and so it cannot support the agency’s decision. And although the government suggests
that DACA’s rescission was also predicated on the Department’s assessment of litigation risk, this
consideration is insufficiently distinct from the agency’s legal judgment to alter the reviewability
analysis. It was also arbitrary and capricious in its own right, and thus likewise cannot support the
agency’s action. For these reasons, DACA’s rescission was unlawful and must be set aside.

For the reasons given above, then, the Court will vacate the Department’s September 5,
2017 decision to rescind the DACA program. The Court will stay its order of vacatur for 90 days,
however, to afford DHS an opportunity to better explain its view that DACA is unlawful. The
Court will also deny the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, its
motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ APA claims on reviewability grounds, and its motion to dismiss
plaintiffs’ substantive APA claim; grant the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ procedural
APA claim, the NAACP plaintiffs’ RFA claim, and plaintiffs’ information-sharing claim; and
defer ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims.

Finally, the Court will also grant plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to their
substantive APA claim, deny that motion as to their procedural APA claim, and deny their motion
for preliminary injunctive relief on their information-sharing claim. A separate order has been
issued on this date.

---

---

DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo formally directed them to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the requirements.[42]

---

---

---